Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

O’Keeffe: A Compensation Factfinder Could Infer Work Causation From the Whole Record

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 20, 2026

O’Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc. reviewed benefits awarded after an employee working on a defense project in South Korea drowned in a channel during off-duty hours and the exact circumstances were uncertain.

Compensation causation may be proved circumstantially

The factfinder could draw reasonable inferences from the employment conditions, surrounding events, and the absence of a persuasive nonwork explanation.

Review did not permit a court to reweigh the record

A reviewing court could not displace a rational administrative inference merely because it might draw a different conclusion from the evidence.

The statutory presumption supported the remedial scheme

The Longshore Act’s presumption operates once a claimant establishes the facts necessary to invoke it, although the Court found the inference supportable on the record as a whole.

Modern substantial-evidence doctrine remains controlling

Later cases define how section 20(a) is invoked and rebutted. O’Keeffe does not excuse proof of harm, working conditions, or a logical causal connection.

Key takeaways

• Develop direct and circumstantial evidence of working conditions.
• Identify the facts that invoke any statutory presumption.
• Address plausible nonindustrial causes with record evidence.
• Frame judicial review around substantial evidence rather than a new fact trial.